Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuanna Law and the Medical Licensee
Medical marijuana is close to reality in Pennsylvania. However, a reality check is necessary at this time. Do not be mistaken and think that as a licensed professional you are not subject to losing your job or license if you test positive for legalized THC in your blood while on the job.
This blog will discuss various provisions of Pennsylvania’s new medical marijuana law and it’s enforcement on Pennsylvania licensed professionals. This blog will not discuss violations of the Medical Marijuana Act by licensed practitioners and patients.
Pennsylvania’s MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT is found at 2015 Bill Text PA S.B. 3, 2015 Bill Text PA S.B. 3. The main provision of the Act as it pertains to use of marijuana by a licensee is § 510, (4). The clause states that: “A PATIENT MAY BE PROHIBITED BY AN EMPLOYER FROM PERFORMING ANY DUTY WHICH COULD RESULT IN A PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY RISK WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA. THE PROHIBITION SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT DECISION EVEN IF THE PROHIBITION RESULTS IN FINANCIAL HARM FOR THE PATIENT.
This provision does not have THC blood level nano gram cut off for the amount of medical marijuana in patient/professional’s blood. The language “Under the Influence” is repeatedly used. Every drug/alcohol expert (not PHMP assessor) knows that a “Under the Influence” blood level is different for every person. This means any active medical marijuana patient/user who is a professional licensee is still subject licensing board prosecution and employment related disciplinary action for allegedly practicing “Under the Influence” of THC in violation of their licensing regulatory statute, regardless of what this provision provides.
Experts of what THC levels constitute “Under the Influence” mean will now abound. Employment based random drug tests based upon appearances of “Under the Influence” will become rampant. Each such positive drug test, with drug expert conclusions on what is “Under the Influence of THC” will become a reportable action to the professional board, which can still take action against the licensee. This especially true for the licensee who does not possess a medical marijuana patient card and tests positive for THC. This conduct will still result in Board prosecution because marijuana use without a registration card is still illegal regardless of whether criminally charged or when THC is removed from Pennsylvania’s controlled substance schedules.
There are two provisions of the Act that support this interpretation. The first is § 1101. This section states GRAPP governs enforcement of the Act. Grapp is Pennsylvania’s General Rules for Administrative Practice and Procedure. These are the same procedural and substantive rules that apply to professional license prosecutions. As such, the same hearing officers that are familiar with how to and which disciplinary provisions apply to the licensed professional accused of violating their licensing regulations will review allegations of Medical Marijuana Act violations for either THC issues or violative conduct under the Act as a health care provider.
The next section is § 2103. This provision deals with protections to licensees who are otherwise medical marijuana card carriers. However, the protections set forth herein only apply to proper use and application of the medical marijuana card. Licensees accused of sharing their medical marijuana to a non-medical marijuana patient, or who engage in other criminal violations (DUI or a Drug Act violation) are still subject to disciplinary action under their own licensing regulations.
As well, subsection § 2103(B)(2) still allows for employment related disciplinary action for those professional’s medical marijuana use that places the public in harm’s way. If you are reading this blog, you are my typical medical professional client. You cannot got to work “Under the Influence” of THC even if it is a prescribed medication. Even though working with THC in your blood is allowed and can not form the “sole” basis for disciplinary action, working in a negligent or reckless manner due to being “Under the influence” automatically puts patients at risk. This conduct will become the basis for employment and licensing action. How and why such becomes known to supervisors is anyone’s guess.
The provision addressing this reality is § 1309. Section 1309 does not prevent imposition any civil or criminal penalty for undertaking a task “Under the Influence” of medical marijuana when doing so would constitute negligence, professional malpractice or professional misconduct. Further, if you are not a registered medical marijuana patient, § 2101, making primacy the Medical Marijuana Act over the Drug Act, does not protect you, the illegal possessor or distributor (sharing) of marijuana.
Finally, it cannot be overstated the potential affect on a professional’s license the suggestion of a medical disability warranting medical marijuana use. Being a properly registered medical marijuana patient legally allows one to consume medical marijuana. However, requesting your medical professional to verify under the Act’s procedures that you so suffer from a medical condition that medical marijuana is the primary medication may trigger Petitions for Mental and Physical Evaluation by your licensing board.
This would occur when a failed employment related drug test or occurrence is reported to the Board. The obvious and typical “Under the Influence” allegations would be made. While no specific direct disciplinary action could be the first salvo in a disciplinary prosecution, allegations of medical infirmity that creates a professional impairment will be lodged. The Mental and Physical Evaluation that will follow will necessarily require production of all medical records, even those that form the basis for the medical marijuana card. This raises the specter of a PHMP required monitoring program for which marijuana use is strictly prohibited. Please read my other blogs on the PHMP and the 3-5 religious based abstinence program.
In sum medical marijuana is more of an indirectly but just as serious threat to many licensees who could become trapped in the maze of license prosecutions once blood tests are drawn and “Under the Influence” allegations are made. Call me to discuss.
Categories
- Blog
- Criminal Defense
- Drug Crimes
- Drunk Driving
- Dui
- Federal Crimes
- Firm News
- Injuries
- Medical Nursing
- OIG Exclusion
- Pennsylvania Criminal Law
- Philadelphia Criminal Justice Updates
- Professional License Application
- Professional License Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Substance Abuse
- Uncategorized
- USMLE and ECFMG
Archives
- September 2026
- April 2026
- December 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
